| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus estrogen receptor antagonist No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1996 | fadrozole vs tamoxifen | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.02 [0.88; 1.19] Objective response (assessable) 1.34 [0.82; 2.19] overall survival (reported or calculated) 0.91 [0.39; 2.13] Objective response (randomised) 1.39 [0.85; 2.29] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.06 [0.90; 1.25] thromboembolic 0.00 [0.00; NaN] rash ∞ [NaN; ∞] hot flushes 0.99 [0.61; 1.60] | | Falkson, 1996 | fadrozole vs tamoxifen | | | Objective response (assessable) 0.89 [0.55; 1.45] Objective response (randomised) 0.94 [0.57; 1.55] hot flushes 0.91 [0.51; 1.65] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Thuerlimann, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Falkson, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | previously untreated postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| advanced breast cancer (metastatic) | versus X No demonstrated result for efficacy fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of nausea in Buzdar b, 1996 fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of vomiting in Buzdar c, 1996 fadrozole inferior to megestrol acetate in terms of nausea in Buzdar c, 1996 | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Bezwoda, 1998 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.74 [0.21; 2.57] Objective response (assessable) 0.92 [0.20; 4.33] overall survival (reported or calculated) 1.35 [0.49; 3.73] nausea 1.49 [0.66; 3.39] Objective response (randomised) 0.92 [0.20; 4.33] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.74 [0.21; 2.57] hot flushes 2.90 [0.82; 10.27] | | Buzdar b, 1996 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | nausea 1.68 [1.06; 2.66] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 0.98 [0.75; 1.29] Objective response (assessable) 1.45 [0.87; 2.41] vomiting 1.88 [0.87; 4.07] diarrhoea 1.15 [0.64; 2.07] Objective response (randomised) 1.45 [0.87; 2.42] Clinical benefit (randomised) 0.99 [0.75; 1.30] arthralgia 0.55 [0.22; 1.36] rash 0.65 [0.31; 1.35] hot flushes 1.27 [0.70; 2.30] | | Buzdar c, 1996 | fadrozole vs megestrol acetate | | vomiting 2.53 [1.31; 4.89] nausea 3.21 [1.96; 5.27] | Clinical benefit (assessable) 1.10 [0.83; 1.46] Objective response (assessable) 0.86 [0.47; 1.58] diarrhoea 0.88 [0.45; 1.69] Objective response (randomised) 0.86 [0.47; 1.57] Clinical benefit (randomised) 1.10 [0.83; 1.46] arthralgia 1.21 [0.62; 2.36] rash 1.38 [0.70; 2.71] hot flushes 1.29 [0.71; 2.32] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Bezwoda, 1998 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Buzdar b, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast carcinoma: | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Buzdar c, 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast carcinoma | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
